Duplicate Children

The differences in each pair are key (i.e. different surnames, male vs. female) so the computer would show them as separate people and someone not paying attention would just click away without noticing. It's possible that Lizzie and Loulval are twins but I'm fairly certain the Margarets are not.

Bigamy

Marrying two women in the same year and having children with both women over the next 20 years is highly unlikely. Not all men named Thomas Fitch in Connecticut are the same person.
If Thomas' paternal line on this tree is correct...I know, I know, it's not likely but go with me on this. If Thomas' line on this tree is correct his great-great-great-grandfather is also named Thomas Fitch. So how many of Thomas' sons named one of their sons Thomas and how many of them named a son Thomas? You get the idea. Then think of the era. Families tended to stay in the same area for generations. Even if half of the Fitches left New London, Connecticut there could still be plenty of men named Thomas Fitch to drive their descendants crazy trying to sort them all out. That's what we do though, sort them out. We compare the details, research each family, and determine, to the best of our ability, which one is most likely our ancestor. Unfortunately that's not what clickophiles do.

Thanks to Karen for the link to this profile ;-)If you have a profile to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.

1 comment:

Yesterday, I visited Freelove and Thomas's grave in CHesterfield Cemetery, Monteville, CT. Thomas married poor Freelove Smith, who died in childbirth less than a year after her marriage. Thomas subsequently married Mary Allen Fitch, who lived a long time and produced many children. He had only one child, William, by Freelove (he survived the childbirth), who moved to Ohio, was residing there in 1850. I have pictures of the gravestone of his parents, with one wife on each side of the family marker.

Subscribe Here

Blog Reviews

Barking has been "deemed offensive to [Ancestry.com's] brand" and is banned from their Facebook pages. In Ancestry's "Community" comments with links to Barking are censored.Dear Emma, Hannah, Jemima, Mary Jane, and all of her other personalities agree that I use "the banner of 'education' to actually mock, deride and laugh at [Ancestry's] own customers" and I "can make [my] point concerning tree inaccuracies & cock-ups and their effect on our 'hints' system without being downright unpleasant and sarcastic about it."Allen says, “your cute little blog is a waste of bandwidth at best”Ann thinks I'm "...copying and pasting mistakes on trees and calling it a blog" and that my readers are "mean-spirited people...who like to have a laugh at the expense of others."Sue was really offended by the “...continual stream of sarcasm and constant poking fun...What a nasty taste in my mouth your blog left me with. Unpleasant, sarcastic and jeering at people who you obviously see as your intellectual inferiors. Won't be reading that again.”And finally from Les, "You truly are a horrible woman, pointing out mistakes is one thing but blatantly laughing and taking the p is completely out of order."

Why?

Researching our family histories we are bound to make mistakes. Hopefully we are quick to correct them. Unfortunately some people refuse to read or think before adding information to their family trees. Some trees have been abandoned so the errors are there for eternity. Here we will laugh, mock and shake our heads at the carelessness, stupidity and/or ignorance of those errors.All examples are taken from trees published online.I'll also post tips occasionally, though the messed up trees are a great example of what NOT to do. If you have an online tree to suggest for a future post please send me a link: buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com

The Fine Print

2. Content: Barking Up the Wrong Tree is responsible for the content of this site, not including visitor comments. Barking Up the Wrong Tree reflects the personal views and opinions of Loretta Gillespie.

3. Credit: Credit is not given to tree owners to protect the clueless. A tree owner who discovers their tree on this site should correct their mistakes so no one else realizes they were once a clickophile.

4. Accuracy and Validity: While there are helpful pointers on Barking Up the Wrong Tree a majority of posts are intended to be humorous. The disastrous trees are copied exactly as they appear on Ancestry.com. These trees are being used to show others what NOT to do.

5. Images: Attempts are made to source images used despite the fact that the trees they are taken from do not include source information.

6. Comments: Barking Up the Wrong Tree will exercise its right to delete comments which are deemed to be spam, offensive, childish or just plain stupid.

7. Liability: The content at Barking Up the Wrong Tree is not to be taken as fact nor absolute. Barking Up the Wrong Tree contains posts that are humorous and posts that are research tips. Barking Up the Wrong Tree is not responsible for anyone who cannot tell the difference between the two. The sites that Barking Up the Wrong Tree links to via hyperlinks are not under its control. Those sites are responsible for the content of those sites. If you do not find the humor on Barking Up the Wrong Tree to your taste then stop reading. If you choose instead to send an email to the owner it may be published on Barking Up the Wrong Tree and mocked publicly.

Who?

I'm a freelance musician in a large Midwestern city. Genealogy is my addiction. I am not a professional genealogist and everything I write should be taken with a grain of salt (preferably with a shot of tequila).